Parker
isteal
+1,452|6823|The Gem Saloon

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:


We aren't there for terrorists.
Nope, we're there to maintain a strong front in the heart of the middle east in an attempt to forestall any future terrorist attacks. We aren't going after the terrorists themselves necessarily, but more a show of force to the entire Islamic nation.
If that were the case we could have left Saddam in power and continued in Afghanistan.

No....we are there for profit. Just like Vietnam we are there for profit. The hard part is when your public starts to see through the smoke. WMD's, 9/11, terrorist regime, democracy....all reasons for going into Iraq.

The true reasoning is, the profiteering. Us little guys are following the bread crumbs around the forest while the big dogs rake in the cash.

Did you know the 1st 60 bombs dropped on Baghdad all missed thier targets? You know why? How much does each bomb cost? Who rakes in the cash on each bomb created?

You know why Congress approved the war in Iraq? Because each member of Congress has/had an interest in the Iron Triangle.

Little guy loses. Big guy wins.

Faulty Intelligence? Not at all.....just a hard war to sell.
yes, raytheon made us invade iraq and drop bombs on nothing just so they could make more money.
you know, the oil bullshit might hold a grain of truth, but come on, now its the weapons companies that made us do it. how many reasons are you guys going to have?
PluggedValve
Member
+17|6769

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

PluggedValve wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:


The US doesn't make the profit. The US accrues the debt and certainn "others" make the profit.
See Halliburton, Cheney.
Negative. See Carlyle Group. Iron Triangle. Military Industrial Complex. Haliburton is just cooking the food. THose are the real money mongers.
Agreed, of course Halliburton has to be mentioned because of the OBVIOUS link though.  Carlyle group et al quietly tells the gov't what to do.  Harder to draw direct links although the evidence is there.  I should also mention the most powerful lobby group in the world:  AIPAC.  No US leader has ever been elected without their approval.  No wonder the Israelis get over 60 million a year directly from taxpayers in the US.
PluggedValve
Member
+17|6769

Parker wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


Nope, we're there to maintain a strong front in the heart of the middle east in an attempt to forestall any future terrorist attacks. We aren't going after the terrorists themselves necessarily, but more a show of force to the entire Islamic nation.
If that were the case we could have left Saddam in power and continued in Afghanistan.

No....we are there for profit. Just like Vietnam we are there for profit. The hard part is when your public starts to see through the smoke. WMD's, 9/11, terrorist regime, democracy....all reasons for going into Iraq.

The true reasoning is, the profiteering. Us little guys are following the bread crumbs around the forest while the big dogs rake in the cash.

Did you know the 1st 60 bombs dropped on Baghdad all missed thier targets? You know why? How much does each bomb cost? Who rakes in the cash on each bomb created?

You know why Congress approved the war in Iraq? Because each member of Congress has/had an interest in the Iron Triangle.

Little guy loses. Big guy wins.

Faulty Intelligence? Not at all.....just a hard war to sell.
yes, raytheon made us invade iraq and drop bombs on nothing just so they could make more money.  TRUE
you know, the oil bullshit might hold a grain of truth  TRUE, but come on, now its the weapons companies that made us do it. how many reasons are you guys going to have?
If you were selling bombs you might be more in favour of going to war, legitimatly or not.  There are many organizations that benefit from war.  Not just Carlyle or Halliburton or Military Complex.  I dont know how people can work for the complex knowing that they make things to kill people.  For christ sake it could be used against them.

"now its the weapons companies that made us do it. how many reasons are you guys going to have?"
You dont see their direct interest??

Sorry for the messy post.
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6823|The Gem Saloon

PluggedValve wrote:

Parker wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:


If that were the case we could have left Saddam in power and continued in Afghanistan.

No....we are there for profit. Just like Vietnam we are there for profit. The hard part is when your public starts to see through the smoke. WMD's, 9/11, terrorist regime, democracy....all reasons for going into Iraq.

The true reasoning is, the profiteering. Us little guys are following the bread crumbs around the forest while the big dogs rake in the cash.

Did you know the 1st 60 bombs dropped on Baghdad all missed thier targets? You know why? How much does each bomb cost? Who rakes in the cash on each bomb created?

You know why Congress approved the war in Iraq? Because each member of Congress has/had an interest in the Iron Triangle.

Little guy loses. Big guy wins.

Faulty Intelligence? Not at all.....just a hard war to sell.
yes, raytheon made us invade iraq and drop bombs on nothing just so they could make more money.  TRUE
you know, the oil bullshit might hold a grain of truth  TRUE, but come on, now its the weapons companies that made us do it. how many reasons are you guys going to have?
If you were selling bombs you might be more in favour of going to war, legitimatly or not.  There are many organizations that benefit from war.  Not just Carlyle or Halliburton or Military Complex.  I dont know how people can work for the complex knowing that they make things to kill people.  For christ sake it could be used against them.

"now its the weapons companies that made us do it. how many reasons are you guys going to have?"
You dont see their direct interest??

Sorry for the messy post.
well if thats the case, i suppose i am profiting from this war.
woohoo i make things that can kill people.....i slept ok last night, and intend to do the same tonight.
doesnt bother me a bit.
but i see your point, if we were throwing rocks at people you would be up the rock companies ass.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6958|Global Command

SteikeTa wrote:

You meant to write Soviet Onion, right?
Of course.
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7091|USA

Parker wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


Nope, we're there to maintain a strong front in the heart of the middle east in an attempt to forestall any future terrorist attacks. We aren't going after the terrorists themselves necessarily, but more a show of force to the entire Islamic nation.
If that were the case we could have left Saddam in power and continued in Afghanistan.

No....we are there for profit. Just like Vietnam we are there for profit. The hard part is when your public starts to see through the smoke. WMD's, 9/11, terrorist regime, democracy....all reasons for going into Iraq.

The true reasoning is, the profiteering. Us little guys are following the bread crumbs around the forest while the big dogs rake in the cash.

Did you know the 1st 60 bombs dropped on Baghdad all missed thier targets? You know why? How much does each bomb cost? Who rakes in the cash on each bomb created?

You know why Congress approved the war in Iraq? Because each member of Congress has/had an interest in the Iron Triangle.

Little guy loses. Big guy wins.

Faulty Intelligence? Not at all.....just a hard war to sell.
yes, raytheon made us invade iraq and drop bombs on nothing just so they could make more money.
you know, the oil bullshit might hold a grain of truth, but come on, now its the weapons companies that made us do it. how many reasons are you guys going to have?
Continue to follow those stale bread crumbs. Ill stand here.
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6823|The Gem Saloon
i love how EVERY entity involved in the war is conspiring against the american people.
you know that real life isnt a tom clancy book, right?
of course this from a guy that supports NORML......i suppose i cant expect much else besides conspiracy rhetoric.
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7091|USA

Parker wrote:

i love how EVERY entity involved in the war is conspiring against the american people.
you know that real life isnt a tom clancy book, right?
of course this from a guy that supports NORML......i suppose i cant expect much else besides conspiracy rhetoric.
Once again here comes the NORML comment. Just because you don't agree, must you resort to personal attacks?
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6823|The Gem Saloon
no personal attacks, unless you are THAT dediciated to norml that you need to take it personally.
i was simply stating that this is yet another conspiracy that you buy into, and that i shouldnt really expect much else from someone that holds such high hopes about a DRUG.
if i was to make a personal attack about weed i would be a hypocrite, my wife and i smoke like its going out of style. the only difference is we dont hold false hope that some "dude" in NORML will "like totally make it legal man".
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7091|USA

Parker wrote:

no personal attacks, unless you are THAT dediciated to norml that you need to take it personally.
i was simply stating that this is yet another conspiracy that you buy into, and that i shouldnt really expect much else from someone that holds such high hopes about a DRUG.
if i was to make a personal attack about weed i would be a hypocrite, my wife and i smoke like its going out of style. the only difference is we dont hold false hope that some "dude" in NORML will "like totally make it legal man".
Maybe your not attacking personally, but definitely condescending. Ill agree to disagree with you Parker.

Now back on topic.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7061|949

A quote from Chomsky I think best describes it:

Chomsky wrote:

They can’t control it and it’s almost impossible for them to get out for reasons you can’t discuss in the United States because to discuss the reasons why they can’t get out would be to concede the reasons why they invaded.

We’re supposed to believe that oil had nothing to do with it, that if Iraq were exporting pickles or jelly and the center of world oil production were in the South Pacific that the United States would’ve liberated them anyway. It has nothing to do with the oil, what a crass idea. Anyone with their head screwed on knows that that can’t be true. Allowing an independent and sovereign Iraq could be a nightmare for the United States. It would mean that it would be Shi’ite-dominated, at least if it’s minimally democratic. It would continue to improve relations with Iran, just what the United States doesn’t want to see. And beyond that, right across the border in Saudi Arabia where most of Saudi oil is, there happens to be a large Shi’ite population, probably a majority.
Source: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3999

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-02-26 12:19:36)

Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7091|USA
"Critics of the Carlyle Group frequently note its connections to various political figures. Some of the sectors and companies in which it invests are highly sensitive to political activity; indeed, its actions may be viewed as a form of political arbitrage. This may create conflicts of interest when political decision makers have their own personal wealth [1] linked to such investments. Carlyle is the largest private equity firm located in Washington, D.C., its corporate headquarters are located on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Critics refer to Carlyle as a private military contractor, because it owns controlling or partial interests in several military contractors. For example, it used to own United Defense Industries, which was developing the Crusader artillery project. This project was funded in eight consecutive Clinton budgets but was cancelled soon after Bush became president, which eliminated the remaining $9 billion of the original $11 billion contract. A much smaller contract was awarded to United Defense to capture technologies developed during the eight years of development.

In the book House of Bush, House of Saud, author Craig Unger states that Saudi Arabian interests have given $1.4 billion to firms connected to the Bush family. Nearly 85% of the 1.4 billion, about 1.18 billion, refers to Saudi Arabian government contracts awarded to defense contractor BDM in the early to mid 1990s. Carlyle, however, sold its interest in BDM before former President George H. W. Bush joined as an advisor.

Former President George H.W. Bush retired from Carlyle in October 2003. George W. Bush served on the Board of Directors of early Carlyle acquisition Caterair. Bush left the board in 1992 to run for Governor of Texas.

The Saudi Arabian relatives of Osama bin Laden were also investors in Carlyle until October 2001 when the family sold its $2.02 million investment back to the firm in light of the public controversy surrounding bin Laden’s family after September 11. The bin Laden family has publicly disowned the al-Qaeda leader, but privately some members of the family have kept in contact with him.[citation needed] Osama bin Laden has no economic interest in Saudi Binladin Group (SBG), whose investments were in part managed by the Carlyle Group until the arrangement was terminated by mutual consent."

JUst a tiny bit of food for thought. Damn them Bush's cleaned up.


More food for thought....

"He says the government shouldn't overreact to corporate scandals.  He watched the September 11 attacks at the Ritz-Carlton with the Bin Laden family.  He's defending the Saudi's against a trillion-dollar lawsuit brought forth by the September 11 families.  He led the campaigns of the last four Republican presidents.  Now he's been chosen as Bush's personal envoy in charge of restructuring Iraq's $132 billion in debt.   Some say he's the most powerful lawyer in the world.  He may be one of the busiest.  Who is he?

JAMES A. BAKER

He's the Senior Counsel for The Carlyle Group, a company that invests pension funds in defense and telecommunications companies around the world.  The Carlyle Group is the nation's 10th largest defense contractor, with extensive ties to Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Andersen, the Saudi Royal Family, and the Bin Ladens.

Through his law firm, Baker & Botts, he is also working to assist American oil companies in the Caspian Region.  This work right now involves a pipeline to be built through Afghanistan, a pipeline that Texas oil companies were negotiating with the Taliban to build before 9-11.

The judge who decided not to freeze the assests of Enron executives in January later recused herself from the case because she was a former employee of Baker & Botts, because of her ties to George Bush and the fact that she had been an Enron stockholder.

Baker & Botts was Enron's counsel when they merged with Enron Power and Pipeline in 1997.

Baker & Botts is currently defending the CEO of Rite-Aid, indicted for conspiracy and fraud.

Two of Baker and Botts's specialties are Corporate Crisis and White Collar Criminal Defense."

https://img106.imageshack.us/img106/1227/axisofevilab3.gif


Oh, and he works for the department of justice. Nice one.

Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2007-02-26 13:09:06)

Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6990

ATG wrote:

Point is, there was verification. Saddam did have a WMD program and fought inspection and verification everystep of the way. That's why we invaded. There is evidence that metric tonnes of banned materials got sent out of the country.
Evidence that metric tonnes may have been shifted is far from proof of a WMD program.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6990

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Nope, we're there to maintain a strong front in the heart of the middle east in an attempt to forestall any future terrorist attacks. We aren't going after the terrorists themselves necessarily, but more a show of force to the entire Islamic nation.
How's that working out so far?  Toppling a sectarian government and then failing to control the religious extremists must be hard work.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard